
Glass . _ 
Book , T 



PRESENTED BY 




JOHN NORTON POMEROY, LL.D. 
Dean i 864-1 871. 



the new york 
University Law School 

PAST AND PRESENT 



BY 

LESLIE JAY TOMPKINS 



NEW YORK CITY 

1904 



n 






p. 
The University. 

7' ! Mr'04 



AN APOLOGY 



It was originally intended to make this sketch of the Law School 
the introduction to a catalogue of the graduates of the institution ; 
but the completion of the catalogue seems so far removed that it 
was deemed wise to issue this, the beginning of the work, at once. 

In drafting the sketch, free use has been made of the records 
of the University; "The University Law School," 3 University 
Magazine 119; The Law School, being portions of Chapters III, 
V, and X of "New York University," Herndon & Co., Boston, 
1901 ; "Austin Abbott," a sketch, by Carlos C. Alden, 3 University 
Law Review 151, and numerous legal biographies. 

Deficiencies are acknowledged in advance. It would be an act 
of kindness on the part of the Alumni, old and young, if they 
would note corrections and additions. Information concerning 
the earlier graduates is particularly desired, and the School will 
welcome this information at any time. 

The writer owes an apology to the great number of living and 
successful members of the bar whose names are not herein in- 
cluded. His only excuse is that he personally knows little of the 
alumni prior to the year 1892. 

Leslie J. Tompkins, 
New York University, 
Washington Square, N. Y. City. 

January, 1904. 




HE history of the School of Law of 
New York University might well be 
left untold, were it to chronicle only its 
inception and the distinctive events 
which have marked its past. An edu- 
cational institution has its past in its 
alumni and in the men who work 
zealously for the welfare and well be- 
ing of that alumni ; its present exists in its students and 
the men whose duty it is to lead and accompany those stu- 
dents to the arena of practical life, and whose influence 
and teaching are fitting these students to face the battle. 
In this way, alumnus, student and teacher, each stands 
for the institution quite as much as the institution stands 
for them. They are one, never to be separated. 

The history of the School of Law is marked by con- 
trasts so great as to warrant its division into a series of 
periods, which may be stated as follows : 

The Struggle for Existence 1834 to 1856 

The Middle Period 1859 to 1889 

The Modern Period 1889 to 1895 

The Law School of To-day 1895 to present 



The Struggle for Existence 
1834 to 1856 

This period is in reality made up of the efforts of one 
man to establish the school in the face of insurmountable 
barriers, before which they succumbed time and again. 

In 1834 the Council of the University, looking to the 
organization of the Faculty of Law, said : 

"The great importance of this department, and the 
solicitude manifested by the members of the bar and 
others for its early and judicious organization, have in- 
duced the Council to give the subject a very anxious and 
deliberate consideration." 

In a pamphlet given to the public at that time the then 
Chancellor, James M. Matthews, says: "Having learned 
that the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, Attorney General of 
the United States, had on various occasions, in common 
with others of his professional brethren, expressed a very 
decided opinion as to the importance and necessity of 
establishing a scientific law school in the city ; and that 
he had also bestowed considerable reflection upon the plan 
and method of instruction proper for such an institution ; 
that gentleman was recently requested, in behalf of the 
Council, to favor them with a statement of the opinions 
he had formed on this interesting subject." 

In the year 1835 Mr. Butler published his "Plan for 
the Organization of a Law Faculty," and "A system of 
instruction in Legal Science in the University of the City 
of New York, prepared at the request of the Council." 
Mr. Butler was at the time Attorney-General in the Cab- 
inet of Andrew Jackson, having in 1833 succeeded the 

8 




p 

P 

I — I 

p 

PQ 

•C ON 

H °o 

, | hH 

CO M 

ri oo 
> 

p 

p 

O 



Hon. Roger B. Taney. Born in Kinderhook, New York, 
in 1795, his abilities, when he was only a boy, had at- 
tracted the attention of his townsman, Martin Van Buren, 
in whose office he studied law. Accompanying Van Buren 
to Albany, he had been admitted to the bar in 181 7. 
Within sixteen years, at thirty-eight, he took his seat as 
Attorney-General at Washington. 

His "Plan" provided for at least three Professors and 
three years of study. He intimates that ordinarily the 
grade of attorney and solicitor was reached at twenty-one, 
and this entirely through service in the office of a lawyer ; 
the higher grade of counsel being attained three years 
later. This course of three years was to be grafted, some- 
how, upon the practice of clerkship. The courts had then 
as a general rule required that the whole term of clerkship 
should be spent in the office of a practising attorney and 
solicitor and under his direction ; for study in a law school 
(but) one year was usually allowed — i. e., the obligation 
of clerkship was in that case reduced by a single year. 
Most law schools had been private, conducted by a single 
lawyer, often in small country towns. The Attorney- 
General distinctly intimated that at that time, in an al- 
ternative of abandoning law school or office work, the 
aspirant for the profession would cling to the latter. Mr. 
Butler proposed for the initial or "Primary" department: 
Practice and Pleading, Organization and Jurisdiction of 
Courts, modes of proceeding in Common Law, in Equity, 
Admiralty, and in Criminal cases. For the second or 
"Junior" department he set down the Law of the Do- 
mestic Relations, the Law of Personal Property, includ- 
ing Commercial and Maritime Law, being matter particu- 
larly contained in the second and third volumes of Kent's 



Commentaries, which Mr. Butler cited. For the third or 
"Senior" department he allotted the Law of Real Prop- 
erty, of Corporations and of Equity. Besides this, all 
three groups were to be jointly instructed in what Mr. 
Butler called the Parallel or General Course, in which the 
philosophical and historical aspects of Law were to be 
brought forward, and which should include the Law of 
Nature, History of American Jurisprudence, Constitu- 
tional Law, Interpretation of Statutes, Roman Law and 
the like. The detailed and specific way in which Mr. 
Butler had elaborated the mode of instruction points 
strongly to the probability that he looked forward to this 
academic work with a definite and clear purpose and with 
real pleasure. 

As to the method of instruction, the ideas presented 
by Mr. Butler correspond favorably with the ideas which 
prevailed for many years subsequent to his time, 
and which seems not yet to have lost favor in the minds 
of many representatives of our bar and bench. 

"The most useful kind of law lecture," says Mr. Butler, 
"is that which is designed to elucidate a preparatory 
course of text-reading previously assigned to the student, 
and to impress upon his mind and memory its leading 
principles. If treatises or dissertations are to be read, 
the student had better do it for himself, under such cir- 
cumstances as to enable him to peruse and digest them 
at his leisure. The oral lecture is not only far more at- 
tractive and inciting, but it furnishes the opportunity of 
supplying the defects of the text-books, and of giving such 
useful information which would never be incorporated 
in a written lecture." In other words, the deductive 
method of proceeding from general principles gained 



through the text-book to particular principles to' be eluci- 
dated by the oral lecture. It was not a new idea, rather, 
it was the idea prevailing in all lines of education at the 
time. 

In the year 1838, the new Law Department was in active 
operation. Mr. Butler was Principal of the Faculty, and 
associated with him were William Kent and David 
Graham, Jr. Mr. Butler was "Professor of General Law 
and of the Law of Real Property ;" Mr. Kent, of the 
"Law of Persons and of Personal Property ;" Mr. 
Graham, of the "Law of Pleading and Practice." The 
Inaugural Addresses of all three have been preserved by 
publication (1838, New York). 

An able and competent observer of that time who was 
quite close to the new enterprise assigns several reasons 
in explanation of the fact that this beginning of 1838 was 
short-lived. In the first place, the troubles of the summer 
of 1838, the convulsion involved in the bitter contest 
between the Chancellor and the seven Professors, reacted 
on the Law Department as well as on the rest of the 
institution. Professor Graham resigned soon afterwards, 
and the number of law students did not exceed fifteen 
or twenty. Mr. Butler was appointed a United States 
District-Attorney by President Van Buren, and Mr. Kent 
became a Circuit Judge. Besides, it was intimated that 
the adherents of the constitutional interpretation of Mar- 
shall and Story would not be friendly to a jurist who 
was identified with the administrative policy of Jackson 
and Van Buren. 

To all this perhaps may be added the fact that the 
habit of what may be fairly called apprenticeship of: 
the future lawyer through clerkship in law offices was 



too deeply settled in that era to have the youths, so much 
younger and less mature than the law students of the 
present time, incline to swerve from the line of training of 
their own principles and to* serve two masters. Even in the 
Universities of England law instruction was then of very 
recent origin, and the Law Schools of Harvard and Yale 
were in their infancy, enrolling but a scanty number of 
pupils. (Harvard had 24 in 1829-30.) Splendid as had 
been the services to American Jurisprudence of Chancellor 
Kent, the Law School of Columbia had maintained but 
a languishing and limited existence. The records of the 
University contain no mention of the students who ap- 
peared and disappeared during this period. In one or two 
of the publications of the time mention is made that 
"students were in attendance upon the lectures of the 
Law School." No register is now in existence showing 
matriculants of the period. Statements as to the school 
were intermittant, some mention being made one year and 
omitted the next. In the University publications of 1839- 
40, the announcement of the Faculty of Law appears and 
this significant statement: "a course of lectures . . . 
has been delivered during the past session," presumably 
1838-39, the Faculty having been appointed in 1838. No 
further announcement appears for a period of fifteen 
years, or until 1854, during which no lectures seem to 
have been given. In 1854 the University announced under 
the title "Faculty of Law," "arrangements are in progress 
to revive this department." The arrangements must have 
fallen through, for nothing appears concerning the school 
in the publication of 1855. In 1856, "The Faculty of 
Law" again appears in the records, and its only profes- 
sor is Mr. Butler. This was evidently intended as the 



12 



publication for the college year 1855-56, for in July, 1856, 
Mr. Butler sent to the Council a letter formally dissolving 
the association of his name with a Professorship of Law 
to which he had originally been appointed in 1835. In 
this letter Mr. Butler reviews the effort of 1838 to actu- 
ally begin the work of legal instruction in the University, 
when "the number of students did not exceed thirty, and 
of these several were unable to make payments of tuition." 
And then the distinguished jurist went on to say : "My 
opinions as to the necessity and importance of a school in 
this city for a systematic and thorough course of instruc- 
tion in legal science, as set forth in the plan above referred 
to and in my inaugural address, are unchanged; but the 
state of my health and other circumstances will not permit 
me, at this time, to indulge the hope that I can take 
any part in the reorganization of a Law School in the 
institution under your care. I hereby resign the office 
of Professor of General Law, of Real Property, and Prin- 
cipal of the Law Faculty, to which I was appointed." 
Thus ended the period denominated The Struggle for 
Existence. No attempt was made to revive or continue 
the school until 1858. Mr. Butler continued the practice 
of law in New York City until his death in 1868. There 
has been no man in his profession more extensive in 
merits, or whose memory is more deeply cherished. His 
resignation as a Professor by no means lessened his 
interest in the institution, and to the day of his death he 
was a patient and interested adviser of its officers. His 
brother, Dr. Charles Butler, served the University as a 
member of the Council and its President for many years, 
while his son, William Allen Butler, served as a member 
of the Council from 1862 to 1898, and was also a lec- 

1 3 



turer on the Law of Admiralty in the Law School for 
many years. 

William Kent was a son of Chancellor Kent, and came 
in as the Professor of Common Law and Domestic Rela- 
tions. He retired in 1839, having been in active duty but 
one year. Mr. Kent was born in 1802, and died in Fish- 
kill, New York, January 4th, 1861. From 1841 to 1846 
he was Judge of the First Circuit, having been appointed 
by Governor Seward. In 1846 he accepted the professor- 
ship in Harvard Law School, but resigned in 1847 an d 
returned to New York., His education and ability won 
for him a prominent place in his profession. 

David Graham, Jr., who also assisted Mr. Butler in 
his plans and the opening of the school, remained but a 
very short time with it. He was appointed a Professor of 
Law in 1837, and resigned in 1838. Mr. Graham was 
born in England in 1808 and died in France in 1852. He 
was a worthy son of a worthy father, the two practising 
at the bar of New York together and were commonly 
known as "Graham the elder" and "Graham the younger." 
He was prominently connected with the early Code, draft- 
ed under David Dudley Field. In 1832 he compiled 
"Graham's Practice," which for two decades was regarded 
as a standard. He was prominent in political and social 
life and attained a prominence in his profession equaled 
by but few men of his day. 



14 



The Aiddle Period 
1858 to 1889 

In reality the Law School dates its foundation from 
the year 1858. All prior attempts to establish the School 
upon a firm basis seem to have been ephemeral, but from 
the establishment of the Faculty of 1858 down to the 
present time, the school has been a vital force in the de- 
velopment of the community. 

In 1858 the Council renewed their active interest in the 
matter, and on May 27th the plan of a Law School was 
unanimously adopted. The Council designated the men 
who were to give instruction in Law in the proposed 
School, leaving to them the task of determining the kind 
and the amount of work to be done by Faculty or to be 
exacted from the students. The University entered into 
no financial liability, and on the other hand, demanded 
but a graduation fee of $10 for every diploma of Bachelor 
of Laws. The Faculty designated were the following: 
The Hon. Thomas W. Clerke, Judge of the Supreme 
Court ; Hon. Levi. S. Chatfield, late Attorney-General of 
the State of New York ; Hon. Theodore Sedgwick, United 
States District Attorney, Peter Y. Cutler, William B. 
Wedgewood, and George H. Moore. 

These gentlemen expressed their appreciation of their 
own selection in flattering terms, but prudently called at- 
tention to several important matters, the settlement of 
which should precede the actual work of beginning lec- 
tures on law. As a first point they mentioned the estab- 
lishment of a Law Library of some considerable extent. 
This was one of the great attractions of the Law School 

15 



at Harvard University. Some thousands of volumes were 
undoubtedly requisite. Such a collection must be re- 
served for the exclusive use of the students ; this library 
would be their place of resort and centre of union. Sec- 
ondly, suitable steps should be taken to give proper pub- 
licity to the new Law School, and have it widely adver- 
tised throughout the land, at least during the first year or 
two. The two matters mentioned would probably involve 
an outlay of $10,000. These points were formulated in 
a communication to Chancellor Ferris, dated June 5, 1858. 

John Taylor Johnston came to the aid of the Faculty 
by laying the foundation of the Law Library with gen- 
erous helpfulness. As to the degree of publicity thrown 
upon the new enterprise, data fails us. One striking fea- 
ture of the new department demands attention. Chancel- 
lor Kent, when he early in the century conducted a short- 
lived Law School in connection with Columbia College, 
had worn the ermine of the highest judicial office of the 
State of New York. B. F. Butler, who made the second 
effort toward establishing a Law School in New York, 
had been Attorney-General in Jackson's administration. 
And now again three of the five proposed law teachers 
were men invested with honors of official distinction. 
Clearly it was considered desirable that in a tentative 
movement — for such it was even then — like this, the legal 
eminence of some of the teachers should be an element of 
strength before the public. 

In the opening circular, attention is called to the ex- 
tensive opportunities for studying actual litigation : in the 
Supreme Court, with its five judges, in the Superior Court 
with six, in the Court of Common Pleas with three, be- 
sides the District and Circuit Courts of the Federal Gov- 

16 



? .'rijKf'i ^~~ 




pi 
< 
P 
a 

CO 

O 

5 
5 

CO 

< 



§ • 
p 

1 — I *> 

p , 

PQ ; 
i — i 

CO 

Pi ■ 

> i 



ernment. The Law School was commended to the future 
legislator, to men who looked forward to the administra- 
tion of inherited wealth, to future merchants. The real 
competition of the Law School was in that day not so 
much with other law schools, but with the idea of accom- 
plishing the entire preparation for admission to the bar 
through apprenticeship in the offices of lawyers. And 
thus the first circular of the Law School which marks the 
beginning of uninterrupted work in legal education in 
New York University presents the matter in the follow- 
ing language: "They (young men) enter a lawyer's 
office and commence the study of law. Books are put 
into their hands to be read. They generally pursue their 
studies unaided hy any oral instruction, or examination, 
or explanation. They imbibe error and truth : principles 
which are still in force with principles which have become 
obsolete ; and when admitted to practice they find, often 
at the cost of their unfortunate clients, that their course 
of study has not made them sound lawyers or correct 
practitioners. The liberty and the property of the client 
are often sacrificed by the ignorance of the lawyer. A 
more accurate knowledge of the law as a science, and of 
its practice as a profession, can be imparted to the student 
in a well-regulated Law School in four months, than is 
usually acquired in a lawyer's office in years." 

The tone and spirit of this note differ greatly from the 
milder manner of Mr. Butler in his design of 1835, when 
the apprenticeship method was treated with deference, 
whereas in the circular of 1858 the gauntlet was thrown 
to the exclusive claims of that system. At the same time 
the course given was of moderate length : from the third 
Wednesday of October to March 4th. The work was 

17 



allotted thus : Justice Clerke taught General Theory and 
Practice of American Law, including Municipal Law and 
Equity Jurisprudence ; District- Attorney Theodore Sedg- 
wick lectured on International, Constitutional and Statu- 
tory Law, and Law of Damages ; Mr. Chatfield presented 
Criminal Law and Medical Jurisprudence; *Mr. Cutler 
figures as Professor of Civil Law, the Law of Evidence, 
Pleading and Practice, and the Law of Real Property ; 
William B. Wedgewood had as his departments, Com- 
mercial, Maritime, and Parliamentary Law, and Law of 
Personal Property ; and Mr. Moore, Legal History and 
Literature. 

It was proposed not only to hold moot courts, but also 
to organize legislative bodies for "provision is made for 
the organization of Legislatures and Conventions for the 
purpose of parliamentary drill and the preparation of the 
public duties to which young men may be called." 

Whether the numbers of students in the new depart- 
ment were adequate for effectively inauguarating the 
latter form of preparation for political life, we do not 
know. The number of "attendants on Law Course" were 
56. The first graduates of the University Law School, 
March 4th, 1859, were eight in number, as follows : Mar- 
cena M. Dickerson ; Gilead B. Nash ; Asa S. Lathrop, 
A.B. ; I. Solis Ritterband ; Chauncey Field, Jr., John 
Stevenson ; Nelson Taylor ; Joseph E. Jackson, A.B. 

The method of instruction remained the same as out- 
lined by Mr. Butler; in fact, no attempt at changes in 
method were made until the reorganization in 1889. If 
method it could be called, it deserves no distinctive name. 
To each instructor was assigned one or more topics, and 
then as now, his success depended upon his own ability to 



properly handle his class. The text book was used, and 
this was supplemented by the oral recitation and lecture. 
This method is as old as education itself. Its age entitled 
it to respect. A distinction was given to it as the in- 
structor was successful in his work, but the distinction 
died with the retirement of the instructor, and history 
repeated itself by the advent of new instructors. There 
is no method of instruction yet devised which can safely 
be adopted by every instructor. The great desideratum 
is results, and judgment goes for or against the instructor 
who succeeds or fails to succeed in developing the subject 
in a logical, historical, terse and practical manner to the 
student. The time ought never to come when the in- 
structor is not king of his own class room. That some 
other has been or is more successful than he by pursuing 
a method differing from his is begging the question. For- 
tunately, this has always been recognized in the University 
Law School, and to it may well be attributed the suc- 
cess of the School. 

In 1859 Messrs. Chatfield and Moore retired from the 
Faculty. 

Lewis S. Chatfield was born in 1808 and died in 1884. 
He was prominent in New York politics, having been 
elected to the Assembly in 1838 to 1843, an d was chosen 
speaker in 1842. In 1848 he was elected Attorney-Gen- 
eral and was re-elected in 1851. He resigned in 1853 to 
take the presidency of the Atlantic and Pacific Railway, 
and while occupying this position gave his services to the 
Law School. His topics were Criminal Law and Medical 
Jurisprudence. He was eminent at the bar of New York, 
and a prominent figure in the prosecution and defense of 
several trials famous in his day. 

19 



George H. Moore came in as Professor of Legal His- 
tory and Literature and retired in 1859. He returned to 
the Faculty in 1871, and remained on its rolls until 1888. 
Mr. Moore was more of a litterateur than a lawyer. His 
writings along historical lines are voluminous. He re- 
ceived the honorary degree of LL.D. in 1868. For some 
years prior to his death he was the Superintendent of the 
Lenox Library (iSy2-'g2). While on the rolls of the 
Faculty he seems never to have assumed active work in the 
School. He was born in 1823, graduated from the Uni- 
versity in 1842 (A.B.), was a member of the Council 
from 1 87 1 to 1883, and died in 1892. 

In 1859 the number of students in attendance increased 
from fifty-six to seventy, and the graduating class of i860 
numbered twenty-four. 

Of the graduates of '60 who have risen to prominence 
may be mentioned the Hon. Asa Bird Gardiner and Jacob 
A. Geissenheimer, while all have maintained the dignity 
of the profession and risen to honorable standing in their 
respective communities. In the two years that followed 
i86o-'6i and '6i-'62, little mention is made of the school 
and "perilous times" seem again to have been before and 
on it. Nevertheless, the students in attendance during 
'6o-'6i were seventy-nine, while twenty received the de- 
gree in 1861. In i86i-'62 seventy were in attendance and 
thirty-six received their degree in 1862. Among these 
are two names whom the alumni are always glad to honor, 
those of the Hon. Smith Ely, Jr., and Hon. Meyer S. 
Isaacs. 

In 1861 the same Faculty was announced as in 1858, 
save for the omission of the name of Chatfield and 
Moore, but it was qualified by this statement: "The 



regular and systematic instruction is under the direction 
of Professor William B. Wedgewood, LL.D., with 
courses of lectures by other professors on select subjects." 

The students were divided into two classes, Senior and 
Junior, with the significant statement that students who 
were competent could carry on the studies in both classes 
and complete the course in one year. Each year seems 
to have been divided into two terms of twelve weeks 
each. Here also appears for the first time the statement 
that "students are admitted to practice on their diploma 
without further examination." This practice was con- 
tinued until 1877, when regular examinations for ad- 
mission to the bar were instituted by the Supreme Court 
and have been continuel to the present. 

In 1862 Professor Cutler retired from the Faculty, leav- 
ing Professors Wedgewood and Clerke masters of the 
field. They continued in their work until the end of the 
year 1864, when Professor Wedgwood retired and a new 
and reorganized Faculty took their place. 

Of Peter V. Cutler little is known, save that he was 
a member of the bar of New York, entered upon his duties 
as Professor in 1858 and remained until 1862, when he re- 
tired. During this time he taught Evidence, Pleading and 
Practice, Civil Law and Real Property. 

William B. Wedgwood graduated from the University, 
with the degree of A.B., in 1836, and received the honor- 
ary degree of LL.D. in 1859. He retired in 1864, 
after having served the Law School from 1858, carry- 
ing upon his shoulders the main work of the School for 
that period. He afterwards established the National 
School of Law in Washington, D. C. No records are 
obtainable showing further facts. 



In i862-'63 there were seventy in attendance, and 
twenty-five received degrees in 1863. Seventy-five were 
on the rolls in i863~'64 and twenty-one received degrees 
in 1864. The attendance for the next few years shows 
the results of the war, as but sixteen were in attendance 
during i864-'65, and but five degrees were granted in 
1865, while the attendance and degrees granted for the 
next nine years were as follows : 



1865-66 


No. 


of students 25, Degree 


granted, 12 


1866-67 




25, 


4 


1867-68 




25, 


11 


1868-69 




30, 


10 


1869-70 




25, 


' 11 


1870-71 




29, 


8 


1871-72 




34, 


24 


1872-73 




35, 


27 


1873-74 




32, 


22 



In 1864, the retirement of Professor Wedgwood neces- 
sitated a further reorganization, and the school opened 
in October, 1864, with the following Faculty : 

Hon. Thomas W. Clerke, Professor of Law. 

John Norton Pomeroy, Dean and Professor of Law. 

Benjamin Vaughn Abbott, Professor of Law. 

The course was made to extend through two years of 
three terms each, each term consisting of twelve weeks. 
A new element seems to have been introduced in the 
method of instruction, whereby the students of the Junior 
year were required to pursue the systematic course out- 
lined, while a system of elective or "a wider range" is 
given to the Senior class. At this time was introduced the 



system of special lectures upon various topics given by 
men prominent in their profession, which system con- 
tinued until 1896, when it was dropped. 

Mr. Abbott retired in 1865, probably because the num- 
ber of students did not warrant his continuing, owing 
to the breaking out of the war. He was born in Boston, 
Massachusetts, 1830, received his degree of A.B. from the 
University in 1850, studied law at Harvard, and returned 
to New York, where he practised law until his death in 
1890. During the year spent in the Law School he taught 
Contracts, Crimes and Remedies. Like his three famous 
brothers, he was a man of the highest attainments, and an 
indefatigable worker, as is shown by the many volumes 
which bear his name. 

Professor Pomeroy, practically unaided, continued the 
work of the school along the lines laid down by him in 
1864. He retired in 1870 and went to California, where 
he passed the remainder of his days in writing and practis- 
ing law. Of his work in the School, there are many living 
who can speak with feeling and admiration. Few men 
could equal his great learning and fewer still his energy in 
providing the profession and the Avorld with knowledge 
in the shape of books. Withal, his gentleness, his genial 
ways, his earnestness of purpose, his treatment of the 
student as a fellow worker both in and out of class room, 
endeared him to the hearts of all who were privileged to 
learn of him. During his term of office sixty-one young 
men received their degrees, while one hundred and 
seventy-five were fortunate enough to have been instructed 
by him. Among them we note the names of Hon. Elihu 
Root, ex-Judge Ernest Hall, Judge Willard Bartlett, ex- 
Judge Thomas S. Henry, Vice-Chancellor Eugene Steven- 

2 3 



son, Hon. Randolph Guggenheimer, Arthur von Briesen, 
Esq., William G. Peckham, Esq., and James Stokes, Esq., 
all of whom have added lustre to the fame of their instruc- 
tor, to the school, and to their country. The Law School 
may well be proud of them all, and it is interesting to 
know that, as the years go on, the light they shed will 
be reflected back as the renaissance of time, scholarship, 
and achievement is always reflected. 

With the retirement of Professor Pomeroy the name 
of Thomas W. Gierke disappeared from the rolls of the 
Faculty with which he had been connected since the 
organization of the school in 1858. Judge Gierke, at the 
time of his appointment, was a Judge of the Supreme 
Court of the State of New York, and remained on the 
bench during all of this time. The work assigned to him 
in 1858 was that of "General Theory and Practice of 
American Law, including Municipal Law and Equity 
Jurisprudence," and this statement was published with 
his name during each successive year. Just the actual 
amount of work he did is not on record. It is known 
that Professors Wedgewood and Pomeroy bore the main 
burden of teaching, but it is taken for granted that Judge 
Clerke's lectures were included as a "course of lectures 
by other professors on select subjects." At the present 
writing, no information as to Judge Clerke is obtainable. 
It is known that he was presiding justice in the First 
Department during the years 1868 and 1869. He was the 
author of "Rudiments of American Law and Practice," 
1842, and "Digest of Cases in the Supreme Court of 
N. Y.," 2 vols., 1841. 

In August, 1 87 1, upon the retirement of Professor 
Pomeroy, a new Faculty was announced : 

24 




DAVID R. JAQUES, LL.D. 
Dean 1887-1891. 



Hon. Henry E. Davies, LL.D., President of the Faculty. 

Hon. E. Delafield Smith, A.M., Professor. 

Hon. David R. Jacques, LL.B., Professor. 

George H. Moore, LL.D., Professor. 

Charles Francis Stone, A.M., Professor. 

The course of instruction was practically the same as 
before. Austin Abbott was announced as a lecturer at this 
time, and delivered a course of special lectures on Plead- 
ing and Practice each year, practically, until his appoint- 
ment in 1890, as Dean of the School. This system of spe- 
cial lectures deserves a word or two of explanation. It 
was not an innovation in legal instruction, the idea had 
prevailed for many years in educational systems and pre- 
vails to-day, that valuable information may be gained by 
this means. 

This is true along advanced lines of education, but in 
undergraduate classes the system has rarely been a suc- 
cess, especially when the regular work of the school is 
dispensed with and is replaced by the special lecture. 

No examinations are required, and students are not 
willing to spend their time listening to lectures upon 
which no examinations depend, especially when the re- 
quired work of the school is of such a character as to 
require their whole time and attention. This, at least, is 
the experience of the Law School, for it was found that 
not one-half of the students attended in exceptional cases, 
while in others the proportion was much less. This was 
not, however, the reason advanced by the school for dis- 
pensing with these lectures, as it did in 1897, but rather 
because the character of the work required of the stu- 
dent made it impracticable to interrupt it by these lec- 
tures ; for interruption it was, causing the omission of 

2 5 



several weeks of lectures which really belonged to the 
regular courses, and thereby depriving the student of 
much information which was more valuable to him at this 
particular time than knowledge of the subjects embraced 
in the special lectures could possibly be. 

Upon the introduction of the new Faculty in 1871, the 
moot court was made a special feature of instruction. 
This was held every Friday, taking up the time given to 
the regular work, and was presided over by Judge Davies, 
who had lately been relieved from the Chief- Justiceship 
of the Court of Appeals, and was now President of the 
Faculty. 

This system of moot courts was continued as a part 
of the instruction until 1896, when it disappeared. At 
this time and probably from the beginning of the work 
in 1858, the regular lectures of the school began at 4 
p, m. and lasted until 5 130 or 6 p. m. From this possible 
ten hours per week should be deducted the moot court 
hours on Friday, which reduced the required work to 
eight hours per week, making a total of two years with 
from 12 to 16 hours of required work for the degree. 
From the inception of the school the main work has been 
done in the afternoon hours. Mr. Butler recommended 
this, because it would allow the student to spend the best 
portion of the day in office work, and the custom as to 
hours was continued, though the shibboleth of office prac- 
tice for the student is rapidly disappearing. At this time 
(1871), however, there was little reason for it, for the 
student was admitted to practice upon his diploma. Later, 
upon the introduction of the bar examinations, the Court 
of Appeals made the requirement of one year of practice 
in an office, allowing for one or two years spent in a law 

26 



school, as the student happened to be a graduate of a col- 
lege or not. 

The requirements for entrance demand a word or two 
of explanation. From the very beginning up to 1895, no 
requirements for admission were exacted. The phrase 
"careful preparation is urgently recommended," which 
appeared annually in the announcement, was an empty 
one, for no questions were asked as to the prospective 
student's qualifications. The University Law School was 
not alone in this, however, for the same rule was in force 
in all the schools in this State. The University Law 
School was not the first to demand entrance requirements, 
however, nor has it always kept pace with the other schools 
of the State in this respect. It is enough, perhaps, to 
know that it is now abreast of the best schools of the 
country. 

There is little information to be gained from the publi- 
cation of the Law School of this time as to the allottment 
of work to the different professors. Judge Davies seems 
to have done little save to preside at moot trials, and the 
main burden fell upon the shoulders of Professors Smith, 
Jaques and Stone, for, as stated, Professor Moore's work 
was special and along the lines of History. Professor 
Smith retired in 1876. He was born in 1826, received the 
degree of A.B. from N. Y. U. in 1846. He was United 
States District Attorney for the Southern District of 
New York 1861-65, and afterwards Corporation Counsel 
of the City of New York. In 1854-59 he edited the four 
volumes known as "E. D. Smith's Reports" of the de- 
cisions of the Court of Common Pleas. He was prominent 
at the bar of this City, having participated in several 
noteworthy cases of his time. He died April 12th, 1878. 

27 



In 1881, President Davies died, and was succeeded as 
President (dean) by Aaron J. Vanderpoel. Judge Davies 
came from and was succeeded by a long line of men who 
have been and are prominent at the bench and bar of this 
country. He was born in 1805, was admitted to the bar 
of New York in 1826, and immediately became a prom- 
inent practitioner at the bar of this State. In 1855 he was 
elected to the Supreme Court, and in 1859 was elected to 
the Court of Appeals for a period of eight years, the last 
two of which he presided as Chief Justice. He returned 
to New York City in 1867, and became counsel for the 
Mutual Life Insurance Company. In October, 1871 he 
accepted the position of Dean (or President), and re- 
mained at the head of the Faculty until his death in 1881. 
His wisdom and counsel were ever ready. His extensive 
practice precluded any great amount of work with the 
school, but he guided the school during these years in a 
way to win him the admiration of all who knew him. 

After Judge Davies resumed the practice of the law, 
all the incidental labor of the Law School devolved upon 
Profesor Jaques, and was performed by him alone until 
1 88 1, though, as has been stated, Judge Davies remained 
President until his death, when he was succeeded by Mr. 
Vanderpoel, who died in 1887. Professor Jaques was 
then appointed Dean of the Faculty, and remained such 
until 1 89 1, when he retired, and was succeeded by Austin 
Abbott. 

Aaron J. Vanderpoel, who succeeded Judge Davies as 
President of the Faculty, did not take any more active 
part in the work of the school than had his distinguished 
predecessor, but he gave to it the prestige of his name, and 
his interest and wisdom helped to guide the school during 

28 



the years from 1881 to his death in 1887. Mr. Vanderpoel 
was very prominent in the city for his great knowledge 
of the municipal and state statutes, and was often con- 
sulted and retained in cases involved in the interpretation 
of these statutes. He was born in 1825, educated at the 
University, from which he received the degree of A.B. in 
1843. He was for many years counsel for the sheriff of 
the city. From 1870 to 1887 he was a member of the 
University Council. He received the honorary. degree of 
LL.D. in 1881 from the University. He died in Paris, 
France, August 22nd, 1887. 

In 1888, Elliot F. Shepard, Esq., whose interest in the 
Law School was pre-eminent, gave to the Law Library 
the library of Mr. Vanderpoel, having purchased it for the 
purpose of thus presenting it. 

In 1881 Professor Jaques secured the services of Pro- 
fessor Isaac Franklin Russell, whose services in the Law 
School continue to this day. During this time, Professors 
Stone and Moore, while nominally on the roll of the 
Faculty, seem to have performed no work save as special 
lecturers. 

From 1 88 1 to 1891 the work of the school devolved 
entirely upon Professors Jaques and Russell, assisted by 
Special Lecturers. From the advent of Professor Jaques 
in 1 87 1, to his retirement in 1891, covering a period of 
twenty years, 1,426 students were in attendance upon the 
lectures of the school, and 745 received the degree of 
LL.B. Among these there is a long line of men who have 
gained prominence at the bench and bar of the country, 
and whose prominence reflects credit upon the school 
which proudly claims them as her offspring. Most of 
them are living at this time, and a detailed statement of 

29 



their honorable careers would be but a repetition of facts 
of which the profession is already in possession. Among 
those who have reached the bench are the following : 



David Leventritt, '72. 
John Henry McCarthy, '73. 
Martin J. Keogh, '75. 
Herman Joseph, '78. 
James A. O'Gormon, '82. 
John Woodward, '81. 

Prominent at the bar and in professional and political 
life are: 



Edward E. McCall, '84. 
Herman A. Bolte, '83. 
Wauhope Lynn, '82. 
Benjamin Hoffman, '85. 
Calvin D. Van Name, '77. 



Charles A. Knox, '72. 
Clifford H. Bartlett, '73. 
Jefferson M. Levy, '73. 
William J. Fanning, '73. 
Theo. E. Tomlinson, '74. 
Jacob A. Cantor, '75. 
John F. Mclntyre, '75. 
Mirabeau L. Towns, '75. 
Frederick B. Jennings, '75. 
M. Warley Platzek, '76. 
David Elwell Austin, '77. 
Thomas Francis Byrne, '77. 
John C. Tomlinson, '77. 
George F. Elliott, '78. 



James Brooks Dill, '78. 
Charles Steckler, '78. 
Archibald M. Maclay, '78. 
James Edgar Bull, '80. 
Wm. A. Purrington, '80. 
Winthrop Parker, '81. 
Edgar J. Phillips, '82. 
Charles S. Taber, '85. 
Isaac M. Kapper, '87. 
John D. Lindsay, '87. 
Victor J. Dowling, '87. 
Henry W. Jessup, '88. 
Charles G. F. Wahle, '88. 
Ambrose O. McCall, '88. 



Professor Jaques deserves more than a passing remark. 
He was born in Woodbridge, N. J., in 1823, educated at 
Harvard, where he graduated in 1842, in both arts and 
law. While there he studied under Greenleaf and Story, 
and came to New York to practice law. For some period 
of time he was connected with Surrogate Bradford, and 



3° 



during this time read, corrected and revised the cases 
published by Judge Bradford, known as "Bradford's Re- 
ports." He afterwards opened an office of his own, and 
built up a special surrogate practice, which brought him 
the admiration and respect of the profession because of 
his deep learning therein. He was a member of the 
Council of the City during 1864-65, and was one of two 
Republicans on that board. In 1871 he entered upon his 
duties with the University Law School and remained in 
active service for a period covering twenty years. In that 
time, as has been noted, more than fourteen hundred 
men studied under him and more than one-half that num- 
ber received their degrees. An able lawyer, an excellent 
instructor, a kind and genial manner, and an innate love 
for young men, won for him the respect, the veneration 
and the friendship of all who studied with and under him. 
To have guided this number of young men, so many of 
whom have attained prominence at the bench and bar 
and in the political, economic and social life, safely 
through the intricacies of the law up to the bar of the 
State, and to see them taking so active a part in the 
civilization of the day, is no small monument to a man, 
and Professor Jaques may well feel proud of his success. 
He builded better than he knew, and the fruition of his 
efforts has begun and will complete for him a lasting 
monument for all time. In a well-earned retirement, 
amid contentment, peace and plenty, cheered by family 
ties and the tender regard of "his boys," Professor Jaques 
spends his declining years. The hearty response from one 
and all is, "May they be many." 



31 



The Modern Period 

In 1889 the University claimed two professional schools 
using the name of the University, but both of which were 
proprietary in the strict sense, the officers and professors 
of each school administering its funds, organizing its 
courses and directing the appointment of its instructors. 

Through the efforts of Chancellor MacCracken (then 
Vice-Chancellor) the School of Law, which had experi- 
enced varying fortunes for forty years, as this or that 
eminent jurist came as lecturer, and in some measure as 
proprietor of its resources, and after a while departed, 
was in 1889 placed under direct University control. The 
Council undertook to administer its finances and to or- 
ganize anew its courses. The classes were for the first 
time separated one from another, in all their exercises. 
The two Professors and the several lecturers received 
their appointments direct from the Council. A Deanship 
of the School was created, to which Dr. Jaques was ap- 
pointed. Enlarged and improved rooms were provided 
for the two classes, upon the principal floor at Washington 
Square. From this date the Law School began a new 
era of progress. 

In 1 89 1 the work of the School of Law was further 
enlarged. Dr. Austin Abbott was called to the Deanship 
to succeed Professor Jaques, who had resigned. The 
number of Professors at Law giving daily instructions 
was increased to four. A graduate division was estab- 
lished, in which thirty-three students were enrolled during 
the first year, 1891-1892. 

The Law Faculty, which was to conduct the work from 
autumn, 1891 on, was constituted thus: Dr. Jaques to 

32 




AUSTIN ABBOTT, LL.D., 
Dean 1891-1896. 



be Professor of the Graduate Chair of Law ; Austin Ab- 
bott, LL.D., to be Senior Professor and Dean, and as- 
sociated with him, Isaac Franklin Russell, D.C.L., as 
Junior Professor and Secretary; Christopher G. Tiede- 
man, A.M., being Senior Adjunct Professor of Law ; 
Henry Lymans Jesup, Professor of Law of Procedure 
and Torts. 

At the beginning of Dr. Abbott's term, the Council 
doubled the lecture room space of the Law School by 
the addition of two lecture rooms upon the second floor 
of the Washington Square Building. These accommoda- 
tions proved soon too narrow. The needs of the Law 
School became, therefore, a strong argument for the 
speedy removal of the under-graduate work to University 
Heights, and the erection of a new building at Washing- 
ton Square. Probably never was a law school housed as 
was this school in the year 1894- 1895. A temporary 
wooden house was built among and around the iron col- 
umns of the first story of the new building, which had 
been begun in May, 1894. In this house lecture rooms 
were provided sufficient to receive the Law School. Out- 
side was the noise of the hammer and windlass. Inside, 
the work of the Law School, under Dr. Abbott, went 
steadily forward. In the spring the Council was able to 
place the eighth floor at the command of the School, and 
on October 1st, 1895, the present quarters were com- 
pleted and occupied. 

Dr. Abbott's administration, which continued for five 
years, from 1891 until his death in 1896, was eminently 
successful and marks a distant epoch in the history of the 
School. It was marked by so many features which were 
wanting in the former years, that it is difficult to recog- 

33 



nize the School of i89i-'96 as the School of i8s8-'9i. 
The distinguishing and pre-eminent changes were, a new 
method of instruction, the addition of the Graduate 
Classes, the growth of the Library, and the merging of 
the Metropolis Law School. 

As stated, the method of instruction up to the accession 
of Dr. Abbott was the same as that outlined by Mr. But- 
ler. Professor Jaques himself characterized it as follows : 
"The theory of legal education pursued in the school was 
the study of rules co-ordinated and classified, combined 
with the study of cases. Systematic knowledge of prin- 
ciples indispensable even to a profitable study of reports. 
The reported case is like the moral tale or fable, the con- 
crete statement making a more vivid impression than 
any abstract precept." 

Upon the reorganization in 1891 "radical changes were 
made from former methods." The changes made were 
nothing more than the free application of the principles of 
modern education to professional study with the resources 
of a University. In a report to the Council, Dean Abbott 
observed : "The methods of instruction have been en- 
larged and diversified by the suggestions of experience as 
we have gone on. Some parts of all subjects are taught 
by lectures. A very few subjects are taught wholly by 
lectures. Some study of nearly all subjects is by text- 
books. 

"Some subjects are taught by cases, and some instruc- 
tors teach entirely by cases. In our judgment, it is better 
that a student should have some training under each of 
the approved methods of instruction, for this broadens 
his view and prepares him the better for his professional 
experience. On some subjects . . . the lectures are 

34 



aided by the printed statute in the hands of the class to 
study and construe as the exposition proceeds. In some 
subjects the exposition is assisted by chronological tables 
and charts behind the lecturer, which aid the student's 
effort to survey the whole field at once and hold in mind 
their salient points in relation to each other. And on 
some subjects other difficulties requiring interpretation or 
complex questions of title or lien and the useful instruc- 
tions of legal analysis and the co-ordination of different 
principles are aided by the use of the blackboard." 

As an aid in following out the above ideas, the "Law 
School Helps" were introduced. They were printed by 
way of illustration of different subjects, and during the 
period of Dr„ Abbott's term, they reached seventeen in 
number. They consisted of copies of precedents, of 
statutes, of monograms, and lectures on the study of law, 
on the duties of lawyers, and in several instances, of re- 
prints from Abbott's Briefs. 

It is but fair to state that Dr. Abbott was wedded to no 
one method of instruction. He was a free lance in all 
methods. Results were the desired end. His fundamental 
idea was that the world needs a trained bar, and that 
the function of a law school is to give the most thorough 
and perfect training practicable before an actual entry 
into practice. Law to him, as it is to all, was not a 
chrysallis, but a growing, living organism, and the science 
of law should be adapted to the life of the commonwealth, 
making it a "jurisprudence of utility." Dr. Abbott came 
to the duties of an instructor at the age of sixty, with 
no previous training along that line and with no fixed 
ideas as to methods. It was to be expected that his first 
years of service were to be passed in an attempt to solve, 

35 



to his own mind, the problem of what was best. His term 
of office, cut off by his untimely death, was only too short 
to answer the problem to his own satisfaction. 

The year 1893 marked the first attempt on the part of 
the Law School to publish a periodical which should be 
representative of the School. Under Dr. Abbott's direc- 
tion, "The University Law Review" was launched. "The 
object of the Review is to 1 promote the scientific study of 
actual law. . . ." "By actual law, we mean the law 
in force to-day. . . . "By study of the law we 
mean not so much the academic methods which the be- 
ginner pursues, but that larger sense in which all pro- 
fessional men are students." Such it became, and from the 
beginning up to Dr. Abbott's death, it wielded such an 
influence. Upon his death it was continued through the 
third volume, and then was suspended because of the 
larger problems confronting the School. 

No part of the expense of publication and editorial work 
was ever borne by the School. Dr. Abbott inaugurated, 
paid the initial expenses, and continued the Review until 
such time as it practically paid for itself. 

Up to 1891 no degree other than the LL.B. Had ever 
been granted upon examination by the University. At 
this time, at the suggestion of Dr. Abbott, the graduate 
courses were inaugurated, the successful completion of 
which entitled the students to the degree of Master of 
Laws. They were intended for those holding the Bache- 
lor's degree and for "members of the bar," both of whom 
were admitted. Here was to be continued the scientific 
study of the law, i. e., "the examination and application 
of the existing law by considering it in relation to other 
parts of the law, to other sciences, and to the welfare of 

36 



the community." At first, efforts were made to get from 
actual practice a knowledge of the law that cannot be 
found, as yet, in books. Gradually, courses on historical 
jurisprudence, and courses in advance of those topics 
taught in the undergraduate course, were added. These 
courses have attracted a number of students, for from 
1892 to 1903 inclusive, 124 received the degree upon ex- 
amination. In 1895 admission for the degree was re- 
stricted to those holding the Bachelor's degree while five 
courses (covering five hours) were required. 

Mention has already been made of the nucleus of the 
Law Library in the generous gift of John Taylor John- 
ston made in i858-'59. Owing to the peculiar situation 
of the school as a preparatory one, and the fact that for 
many years the income from fees for tuition barely gave 
to the Professors in charge living salaries, accessions to 
the Library from 1858 to 1891 were few and far between. 
Indeed, it may be said that practically no books were 
purchased, the accessions being in the shape of gifts. 
It is not known just how many volumes there were, 
for the reason that library economies embracing records, 
etc., were not introduced into the library until 1892. 
Several small collections were also donated by one or two 
publishers of law books during this period. 

The room devoted to the library up to 1889 was not 
commodious and not well lighted. It was on the second 
floor of the old building. In 1889 it was removed to the 
first floor, in a room which was larger, lighter, better 
ventilated, and convenient, but no increase came in the 
library until 1891. At this time the collection amounted 
to about five thousand volumes. Upon the accession of 
Dr. Abbott to the Deanship, the importance of a well- 

37 



equipped library was recognized by the purchase of about 
three hundred volumes, and the gift of Mr. David Banks, 
of the Council Committee on the Law Library, increased 
the number by two hundred. From this time until 1895, 
when the library was moved into its new quarters in the 
new Washington Square Building, the accessions were 
scattered and few. No catalogue to speak of had been 
made, and not one single economy introduced up to 1892. 
The library was open only from 9 a. m. to 6 p. m. Upon 
entering the new quarters the library came in with a com- 
plete catalogue, properly classified and with the modern 
economies introduced. It was immediately opened and 
increased by the generous gifts of Messrs. Abner C. 
Thomas and Clarence D. Ashley, representing the Metrop- 
olis Law School, who presented to the Library over five 
hundred volumes which were greatly needed. 

Following these gifts, came the gift of J. W. C. Lev- 
eridge, Esq., for many years a member of the Council, 
amounting to 554 volumes ; and a further gift of Mr. 
David Banks of 148 volumes. These gifts brought the 
Library up to something like 8,000 volumes. No sys- 
tematic purchase of books was begun until i896-'97, when, 
through the efforts of the then Librarian, a systematic 
purchase of books was begun. At this time, not a single 
set of reports was complete, and an effort was made and 
has continued to secure all current reports, and as rapidly 
as possible to complete sets already owned, and to secure 
new and original ones. In 1897, Mrs. Margaret L. V. 
Shepard presented to the Library the collection of law 
books owned by her husband, the late Elliott F. Shepard. 
This collection numbered 1,390 volumes, and was a great 
boon to the school, duplicating as it did several important 

38 



sets, where duplicates are most needed, and otherwise in- 
creasing the usefulness of the Library. 

In 1900 there came to the Library 954 volumes through 
the bequest of the late Chief Justice Daly. This collec- 
tion added greatly to the material equipment of the school, 
abounding as it did in historical treatises and rare vol- 
umes of cases. 

The Library of to-day numbers roundly 18,000 vol- 
umes, of which more than 6,000 have been purchased 
since i8g6-'gy. It is situated in a large, well-lighted, and 
well-ventilated room on the tenth floor, and is 52 ft. x 
100 ft. in size, with conveniences as to stacks, desks and 
general accommodations the equal of any in the State. 
The balcony and floor contain stack room for 20,000 
volumes, while the room can accommodate nearly 200 
readers at one time. It is open from 9 a. m. to 11 p. m. 
every day during term time ; is presided over by trained 
assistants, and is to the school what it ought to be, a well- 
equipped work shop. 

In 1890, Charles Butler, Esq., whose long service on 
the Council and generous interest in the University will be 
ever remembered, provided an endowment consisting of 
$5,000 for the "Butler Law Prizes," in memory of his 
brother, Benjamin F. Butler, who will be recognized as 
the founder of the school and its first professor. The 
income of this fund is used for three prizes in the Senior 
class of $100, $60, and $40, respectively, to the students 
ranking first, second, and third in that class. This is 
the only real endowment fund that the School possesses. 

In 1889 Elliott F. Shepard, Esq., established a tuition 
scholarship to bear his name for a period of five years. 
Mr. Shepard continued this scholarship during his life- 

39 



time, and his widow, Mrs. Margaret V. Shepard, has 
generously continued it to the present time. This scholar- 
ship is awarded as first honor to the student of the Junior 
class maintaining the highest rank, and covers tuition for 
the Senior year. For may years the School has main- 
tained a system of scholarships and prizes. 

To the three students of the Junior class maintaining 
the rank of second, third, and fourth, are awarded Fac- 
ulty scholarships, which cover tuition for the succeeding 
year of work; to the students of the Senior class two 
prizes of $100 each, one for the best written examination 
and one for the best oral. In 1896 oral examinations were 
done away with and the method already outlined under 
the Butler prizes introduced. 

In the evening, two prizes of $75 and $50 respectively 
have been maintained in each class, the money going to 
the students who rank first and second in their respective 
classes. Beyond these, no provision has been made for 
scholarships. It seems to be a well-recognized provision 
that the professional training school shall be free from 
scholarships. Be that as it may, a few scholarships might 
well be awarded in such a way as to redound to the credit 
of the school, the success of the bar, and the 'welfare of 
the student. 

In i8o4-'95 negotiations were entered into between the 
officers of the University and the officers of the Metropo- 
lis Law School looking forward to a consolidation. This 
institution was chartered by the Regents of the State of 
New York in 1891, and the work had been chiefly confined 
to giving instruction in the evening. At this time the 
Metropolis School maintained a standard of admission in 
advance of the University ; it also required a three-years' 

40 



course for graduation, and the method of instruction was 
modeled after that made so popular at Harvard by Pro- 
fessor Langdell. It was in every respect a model school, 
with a complete corps of able instructors, an enthusiastic 
body of students numbering about 180 at this time, and 
a circle of friends and adherents whose interest was sig- 
nificant. As against this we find the University School 
with a much lower requirement for admission, a two-years' 
course, and a method of instruction almost the direct 
opposite from that of the Metropolis. The negotiations 
were successful. Friction was avoided by practically 
maintaining the two schools separate and distinct from 
each other for a period of years. The University School 
continuing on as before with its requirements, methods, 
and instructors, and the Evening Department continuing 
on with practically all of its old instructors, its methods, 
and the time required for graduation. Only in one in- 
stance did the Evening Department give way, and that 
was in the requirements for admission. Under their char- 
ter, they were bound by the Regents of the State, while 
the University was bound only by its charter, a grant of 
the Legislature in 1831. 

To work these two departments harmoniously was no 
mean task. The school was happy in being able to secure 
Professor Clarence D. Ashley to act as Vice-Dean in 
charge of the Evening Division, who was to associate with 
Dr. Abbott in the control of the schools. No combination 
could have been happier, and that no friction ever de- 
veloped is due to the regard and respect that these men 
paid each to the other. This relationship continued for 
only one short year, however. The consolidation was 
effected in October, 1895, and in April, 1896, Dr. Abbott 

41 



died. The consolidation seemed more than fruitful in 
results. In i894-'95 the total registration of students in 
the University School numbered 281, while in the Metrop- 
olis, 176. In i895-'96 the combined registration num- 
bered 527, an increase of seventy students. 

Austin Abbott was a member of a family distinguished 
for two generations in literature, professional and general. 
His father, Jacob Abbott, clergyman and teacher, wrote 
something like 200 volumes. 

He was born in 183 1 and was one of four sons, all of 
whom graduated from New York University, two enter- 
ing the Law, Austin and Benjamin Vaughn, while two 
entered the ministry. Dr. Abbott was admitted to the bar 
in 1852, and at once applied himself to the field of legal 
literature. 

Collaborating with his brother, Benjamin Vaughn, they 
together issued in rapid succession, "Abbott's Digest of 
New York Decisions," and "Abbott's Practice Reports," 
in 35 volumes ; the "Digest of National Decisions," in 
12 volumes, and "Forms of Pleading," in two volumes. 
After twenty years of joint work the brothers divided 
their work. Thereafter Dr. Abbott published "Abbott's 
Court of Appeals Decisions," four volumes ; "Abbott's 
New Cases," 31 volumes, and an "Annual Digest of New 
York Decisions," which he continued to his death. In 
1880 he published his "Trial Evidence," his first treatise. 
Thereafter followed in quick succession his "Brief Books," 
four in number, which gave to the profession an invaluable 
presentation of subjects of immense practical importance. 
He became Dean of the Law School in 1891. For the 
five years following he published only two volumes, his 
"Select Cases on the Examination of Witnesses" and 

42 



"Select Cases on Pleading'." Coming to the Deanship at 
the age of sixty, law school work became the controlling 
motive in his labors, and so continued, all other labor 
being subordinated to this new field. His work in the 
school has already been outlined. The School stands much 
in his debt, and had his life been spared his work as an 
educator would surely have equaled if not surpassed his 
fame as a legal author. 

"For many years Dr. Abbott stood as a commanding 
figure in the field of legal literature. Slight, though tall 
and erect in stature, his slender form supported a head 
of marked intellectual powers, impressing an observer 
with the complete domination in his personality of the 
mental over the physical. This impression deepened upon 
every advance in acquaintance. Those who knew him 
intimately found him unaffected by any conceit of knowl- 
edge, exceptionally modest and gracious of demeanor. 
No man of modern times has been so devoted to research 
in law, or has placed such rich stores of erudition at the 
command of his professional brethren. His life work 
will never be forgotten or outgrown, but will ever play 
an inseparable part in the continued progress of the law." 



43 



The School of To-day 

Just as the periods heretofore mentioned stand in prom- 
inent contrast, so the school of to-day stands in contrast 
to the period which immediately preceded it, for the 
changes made were more direct and radical than any 
which had before been made. They may be summarized 
as follows : 

(a) The introduction of the study of law by cases. 

(b) An increase in the requirements for the degree. 

(c) An increase in the requirements for admission to 

the school. 

(d) The growth of the Law Library. 

(e) The introduction of numerous additional courses 

of study to the curriculum. 

(/ ) The introduction of work covering all hours of 
the day and on Saturdays. 

(o-) The granting of the degree of Doctor Juris for 
work done in the school. 

Upon the death of Dr. Abbott, in January, 1896, Vice- 
Dean Ashley continued as Acting Dean for the balance of 
the school year, and was elected to the Deanship in Octo- 
ber of that year. The work of the school for the balance 
of the year following Dr. Abbott's death was undisturbed, 
Dr. Abbott's work being cared for by Professors Tiede- 
man and Alden. In October, 1896, Professor Ashley took 
the major portion of Dr. Abbott's hours, and a course of 
lectures on Equity Jurisprudence was delivered by the 
Hon. Wm. Wirt Howe and Professor Miller, of the even- 
ing school, took up the work of the Code. Professor 
Tiedeman resigned in June, 1897, and in October, 1897, 
Professors Kenneson, Sommer, and Arthur Rounds, of 

44 




CLARENCE D. ASHLEY, LL.D. 
Dean 1896-. 



the evening school, together with Professors Ashley, Rus- 
sell, Erwin, and Miller constituted the "Day" faculty, 
and have since continued the work, with several addi- 
tions to the faculty. 

The instructors from the Metropolis Law School 
brought with them in 1895 the "method" of teaching law 
by means of selected cases, and when they took up the 
work of the "Day" school naturally introduced that 
method into their classes. This is no place for a discus- 
sion of "system" or "methods" of instruction, for the sub- 
ject has been duly threshed out and properly weighed. 
It is enough to say that teaching and studying law by 
means of cases is now firmly established in the best schools 
of the country, and that its adherents find it satsifactory 
and efficient both to student and instructor. 

In our own school it has been fruitful of results, and 
perhaps the best argument we can find for it is that our 
instructors who were brought up under and were taught 
the older "method" of text book immediately adopted the 
cases and are now firm and enthusiastic adherents of it. 

We pause here for a moment to speak of Professor 
Christopher G. Tiedeman. Professor Tiedeman came to the 
Law school in 1891 — having been an instructor in the 
Law School of the University of Missouri. He continued 
his work in our school, teaching Real Property and Com- 
mercial Paper for six years, and resigned in June, 1897. 
For some years thereafter he continued his literary work, 
and in 1901 was chosen as Dean of The Buffalo Law 
School. The profession at large was shocked at his sud- 
den death in August, 1903. His legal works on Real 
Property, Police Power, Constitutional Development, 
Commercial Paper, and other subjects have made his name 

45 



permanent. The University honored him with the degree 
of Doctor of Laws in 1896, and the students of the school 
during the years he served it remember with gratification 
and pride the kindly, courteous and learned gentleman 
that he was. 

In 1 89 1 the hours for recitation covered eight hours per 
week, the regular lectures being from 3 .'45 to 5 :45, while 
Friday was used for moot court work. This schedule was 
also carried out during the years 1891 to 1896. In 1897, 
the Faculty determined to begin the work at 3 130, to con- 
tinue it to 6 p. m., and to omit the moot court work alto- 
gether. By this method they added 4j4 hours of work 
per week to the requirements, making a minimum of 12^2 
hours per week of required work. They also abolished 
the special lectures, so that the entire time was devoted to 
the actual study of the important subjects of the curri- 
culum. Mention has already been made of their reasons 
for abolishing the special lectures, and the same reasons 
will apply to moot court work. The return for the time 
and labor expended in moot court work is so small to the 
student that it seemed advisable to drop it. Elective as 
they were, the attendance was small, and often confined 
to those students directly assigned to the work, and it 
was therefore decided to discontinue them and devote the 
time to the more important work of the school. In the 
places of the special lectures and moot court work there 
have been introduced "practice courses," which have been 
found to be far more effective and attractive — where the 
work under an experienced instructor is both direct, effi- 
cient and thorough. These courses are open to all the 
students of the school — and are as much a portion of the 
work of the school as any other subject; examinations 

46 



being required of those who elect them and the work con- 
ducted in much the same way. 

Along this line, the work required in 1891 for the degree 
of LL.M. was four hours of work, covering as many spe- 
cial subjects. This was soon increased to five hours, and 
was limited to those who held a first degree in law. In 
1898, the present faculty increased the work required 
to eight hours per week, and the submission of a thesis 
on some approved legal topic, which thesis must not be 
more than 10,000 words in length, and must be unani- 
mously approved by the faculty. This requirement is re- 
garded as requiring from two to four hours per week in 
its production. The theses are bound and preserved in 
the Library. 

In 1895, the requirements for admission to the school 
as a candidate for a degree was placed oh a par with the 
requirement of the Court of Appeals for admission to 
the Bar of New York. This requirement was either a 
Regent's certificate covering twenty-eight counts, or about 
two years of high school work. The Faculty regarded 
this as insufficient, and while adhering to it for a few 
years, in 1900, restricted the admission to students as 
candidates for a degree to those who are graduates of high 
schools maintaining a four-years' course, or its equivalent, 
the Regent's Academic Diploma. The added requirement 
has been found advantageous in giving far better class- 
room work, and, as has been said, places the school in line 
with the best schools of the country. 

The Law Library has already been mentioned, and it 
but remains to say that beginning with 1895 a more active 
and determined stand was taken by the Faculty in respect 



47 



to placing this most necessary adjunct of the school on a 
substantial and permanent basis. 

The Library accordingly became a subscriber to all re- 
ports published, and has endeavored to secure the original 
reports of all the States. From 1895 to the present over 
6,000 volumes have been purchased, including the reports 
of all the States save six of the Southern States, the orig- 
inals of which are exceedingly scarce, and difficult to pur- 
chase. 

The English and Canadian reports are complete and 
as far as is possible and necessary the Library is in receipt 
of the later text books. It is kept open eighty-four hours 
per week, and the wisdom of the Faculty Committee in 
charge, in their endeavor to constantly better it, is proven 
by its continued and increased use. It is limited in its 
use to the students of the school, but the Alumni are ad- 
mitted upon cards which are issued by the Secretary and 
which allow its use during the hours when the rooms are 
not filled by the students. 

The increase of the hours of work required gave the 
Faculty an opportunity to add to the curriculum a number 
of courses upon subjects which had not before been given. 
But the subjects deemed necessary to a well-rounded curri- 
culum could not be given within the limited time, known 
as the regular hours of recitation. An experiment was 
tried of offering certain courses to such students as cared 
to attend in the morning and early afternoon. The ex- 
periment proved a success from the beginning, and 
prompted the introduction of other courses so that from 
nine o'clock on Monday morning until six p. m. on Satur- 
day night some one or more courses are being conducted. 
The rapid increase of these courses in number and in 

48 



the importance of the subjects, led the faculty to the con- 
clusion that it was not wise to limit a student to stated 
subjects and recitation hours — but to say to him: "You 
are required to cover 26 hours of recitation per week for 
the two years you are here, or, in other words, 13 hours 
per week. You may select such hours as may best suit 
your convenience, morning, afternoon or evening, and 
you may further select any subjects you desire, subject to 
the condition that the subjects of Contracts, Torts, Real 
Property, Equity, Evidence and Bills and Notes must be 
taken." 

Subjects are given which cover sixty hours per week, 
so the student is not put to any inconvenience to select his 
work. No student is confined to the minimum number 
of hours, but is told that he is at liberty to take as many 
subjects as he pleases, the one tuition fee admitting to all 
classes. 

If the work is entirely in the evening, the student is re- 
quired to take three years, each year covering ten hours 
per week. 

The success of this arrangement has proved most grati- 
fying and satisafactory, and the usefulness and efficiency 
of the school has been greatly increased thereby. To-day 
courses are offered on : 

Contracts Wills 

Torts Equity Jurisdiction 

Sales Evidence 

Agency Partnership 

Property Corporations 

Procedure Bills and Notes 

Criminal Law Equity Pleading 

49 



Quasi Contract Mortgages 

Common Law Pleading Trusts 

Carriers Personal Property 

Insurance Patents 

Damages Conflict of Laws 

Surrogate's Practice Admiralty 

Elementary Jurispru- International Law 

dence Advanced Property 

Constitutional Law Surety and Guaranty 
Statute of Frauds 

It is not believed or expected that each student will 
cover each and every of the courses given above, but 
aside from the required subjects enough can be taken to 
give him an excellent foundation for his work in the 
years to come. 

In 1902 Arthur C. Rounds retired from the Faculty. 
Professor Rounds is a graduate of Amherst College 
and of the Harvard Law School. He became an instruc- 
tor in the Metropolis Law School in 1893, and came 
to the University in 1895. From 1897 to 1902, Pro- 
fessor Rounds taught the subject of Partnership in both 
divisions of the school. He had won the respect and ad- 
miration of his classes and of the Faculty, and it was with 
a feeling of regret that he was allowed to sever his con- 
nection with us — in order to devote his time more closely 
to his practice. 

In 1901, Charles F. Bostwick retired from the 
Faculty, where he had taught the subjects of Special 
Statutory Procedure and Corporations for several years, 
beginning with the year 1894. These -classes were origin- 
ally denominated as "Graduate Classes," and were among 

t 

5° 




o 

o 

h 
U 

w 



the successful courses of the school. His resignation was 
due to the active demands on his time and practice, and 
he carries with him the respect and regard of both stu- 
dents and faculty. 

The latest innovation in the school of to-day is the reso- 
lution of the Faculty to grant the degree of Doctor Juris 
for work done in the school. For a long time the Faculty 
has recognized that there was an apparent inconsistency 
in the legal degrees. A college graduate might take a 
course in Philosophy, or Pedagogy, or Science, in Medi- 
cine or Dentistry, and after three or more years secure the 
Doctor's degree — while the legal degree obtainable was 
that of Bachelor of Laws. The Faculty, trying to solve 
the problem, determined that beginning with the year 
1903 the school would grant the degree of Doctor Juris 
to students who entered the school with the Bachelor's 
degree in Arts, Philosophy or Pure Science, and who 
successfully pursued a three-years' course covering not 
less than fourteen hours per week, or a total of forty-two 
hours for the course. 

The resolution was heartily supported by the Council 
of the University, and in October, 1903, a number of 
students were enrolled as candidates for the degree. 

The reception of this step on the part of the Faculty 
by the public may well be voiced by the following edi- 
torial from the New York Tribune in its issue of January 

25, 1903- 

"An interesting and hopeful step has just been taken 
by the New York University toward an adjustment, or 
readjustment, of the relationship between collegiate and 
university courses of study and between their respective 
degrees. This university, in common with the great 

5i 



majority of its fellows, does not think it desirable to insist 
upon the baccalaureate degree as prerequisite to admission 
to all of its professional or post-graduate schools, though 
it does encourage such acquisition of that degree when 
practicable ; and it is emphatically opposed to lowering 
the value of the baccalaureate degree by conferring it 
after only a two-years' course. At the same time it recog- 
nizes the desirability of discriminating, especially in its 
law school, between those who have and those who have 
not previously pursued a full college course and received 
the bachelor's degree. Accordingly, it has decided upon the 
following arrangement : Its ordinary law course, leading 
to the degree of LL.B., or Bachelor of Laws, and quali- 
fying students for admission to the bar, will be main- 
tained as at present, and will be open to properly prepared 
students, whether they are college graduates or not. It 
will also conduct a law course leading to the degree of 
J.D., or Doctor of Law, which will be open to only those 
who have received the baccalaureate degree from colleges 
of approved standing. 

"This arrangement seems to be logical and consistent. 
It simply provides for doctorates in law, conferred in 
course, just as in medicine, philosophy and other depart- 
ments of learning. For such an end the degree of Doctor 
Juris is well suited. That of LL.D. is by universal prac- 
tice and consent an honorary degree. That of D.C.L. is 
used in course by at least one American university of the 
highest standing, but it is liable to be confounded with the 
same degree conferred as an honorary one by other insti- 
tutions. There will be no mistaking the purport of J.D. 
Moreover, it is consistent with other features of the uni- 
versity system. Thus, while any qualified person may 

52 



pursue a post-graduate course, only one who has a bac- 
calaureate degree may secure a Doctorate of Philosophy. 
So the master's degree in pedagogy may be won by a 
high school graduate, but the doctor's degree by none but 
a collegiate bachelor. The doctor's degree in medicine 
is given, it is true, to' others than bachelors ; but that prac- 
tice seems to be justified by the greater length — four years 
— of the professional course in medicine. As a matter of 
fact, moreover, a large proportion of medical students are 
holders of baccalaureate degrees. 

"It may be that Americans, as has often been said, are 
too fond of these titles and place too much value upon 
them. What is certain, however, is that so long as 
academic and professional degrees are conferred, each of 
them should have a well-defined meaning and a standard 
significance, and there should be an equitable bestowal of 
degrees upon members of the various professions. There 
has hitherto seemed to be some injustice in providing that 
while one who is not a college graduate may become a 
doctor in medicine, even the most worthy college gradu- 
ate shall not become a Doctor in Law ; and there has 
seemed to be a deplorable lack of encouragement to higher 
culture in giving the college graduate no higher standing 
than the non-graduate at the law school commencement. 
It will be of much interest to watch the application and re- 
sults of New York University's new scheme, which at 
first sight certainly seems to promise a happy solution of 
a long-vexing problem." 

Thus ends the story of the Law School. Conceived in 
the hope and desire for the better training of the bar, it 
struggled hard for an existence and more than once was 
perilously near to dissolution. Dormant for a time, it 

53 



revived, and has been active and earnest in its work from 
1858 to the present time. From the time of its revival to 
the present, 8,494 students have been instructed in its 
class rooms, of whom 2,314 have received degrees and 
gone on into the arena of life. Proud of the numbers who 
have laid here the foundation for active life, rejoicing in 
its past as a factor for good, hopeful and enthusiastic for 
the present and future, the University Law School stands, 
a tower of strength for usefulness, for good, and for high 
ideals in the community at large. 



54 



Presiding Officers of the Faculty 

Benjamin F. Butler, LL.D 1835-1856 

Thomas W. Clerke, LL.D 1858-1864 

John Norton Pomeroy, LL.D 1864-1870 

Henry E. Davies, LL.D 1871-1881 

Aaron J. Vanderpoel, LL.D 1881-1887 

David R. Jaques, LL.D 1887-1891 

Austin Abbott, LL.D 1891-1896 

Clarence D. Ashley, LL.D 1896- 



55 



Professors and Instructors 

Benjamin F. Butler 1835-1856 

William Kent 1837-1839 

David Graham, Jr 1837-1838 

Thomas W. Clerke 1858-1870 

Levi S. Chatfield , 1858-1859 

Theodore Sedgwick 1858-1859 

Peter Y. Cutler 1858-1862 

William B. Wedgewood 1858-1864 

George H. Moore 1858-1888 

John Norton Pomeroy 1864-1870 

Benjamin Vaughn Abbott 1864-1865 

E. Delafield Smith 1871-1876 

David R. Jaques 1871-1891 

Charles Francis Stone 1871-1881 

Isaac Franklin Russell 1881- 

Austin Abbott 1891-1896 

Christopher G. Tiedeman 1891-1897 

Henry Wymans Jessup 1891-1893 

Frank Alexander Erwin 1893- 

Charles F. Bostwick 1893-1901 

Carlos C. Alden 1894- 

Morris Putnam Stevens 1894- 

Clarence D. Ashley 1895- 

Thaddeus D. Kenneson !895- 

George A. Miller 1895- 

56 



Frank H. Sommer 1895- 

Arthur C. Rounds 1895-1902 

Ralph S. Rounds 1895- 

James L. Steuart 1896-1902 

James Hillhouse 1897-1898 

Leslie J. Tompkins 1898- 

Alfred Opdyke 1899-1901 

Francis W. Aymar 1901- 

Edward H. Sanford 1901- 

William F. Walsh 1902- 

William B. Whitney 1902- 



57 



Lecturers 

1866 Aaron J. Vanderpoel, Esq., Frauds on 

Creditors 1869 

1866 Erastus C. Benedict, LL.D., Admiralty. . . . 1869 
1866 Walter R. Gillette, M.D., Medical Jurispru- 
dence 1869 

1866 Benjamin N. Martin, D.D., Legal Ethics. . . 1870 

1 87 1 Austin Abbott, LL.D., Preparation for Trial 1891 

1885 Cephas Brainerd, LL.D., International Law. 1897 

1885 William Allen Butler, LL.D., Admiralty. . . 1897 

1885 Joseph S. Auerbach, LL.D., Corporations . . 1896 
1885 Amasa A. Redfield, LL.D., Testamentary 

Alienation 1897 

1885 Hon. Charles F. MacLean, Criminal Law.. 1897 

1886 Melville Egleston, Esq., Carriers 1889 

1886 John E. Parsons, LL.D., Wills 1897 

1887 Hon. Meyer S. Isaacs, Titles to Real Estate. 1897 
1 891 William G. Davies, Esq., Life Insurance. . . 1897 

1895 Hon. Abner C. Thomas, Real Property. . . . 1900 

1896 James Hillhouse, Esq., Parliamentary Law. 1897 
1896 Ernest G. Sihler, Ph. D., Roman Law 1900 



58 



Students in Attendance New York University 
Law School 



Year. 


Students. 


Year. 


Students. 


1858-59 


56 


1889-90 


142 


1859-60 


67 


1890-91 


180 


1860-61 


79 


1891-92 


235 


1861-62 


70 


1892-93 


193 


1862-63 


70 


1893-94 


210 


1863-64 


75 


1894-95 


263 


1864-65 


16 


1895-96 


5ii 


1865-66 


25 


1896-97 


562 


1866-67 


25 


1897-98 


574 


1867-68 


25 


1898-99 


592 


1868-69 


30 


1899-00 


596 


1869-70 


25 


1900-01 


582 


1870-71 


29 


1901-02 


552 


1871-72 


34 


1902-03 


631 


1872-73 


35 


1903-04 


615 


1873-74 


32 







1874-75 


55 


Total 


8118 


1875-76 


68 






1876-77 


82 






1877-78 
1878-79 
1879-80 
1880-81 
1881-82 
1882-83 
1883-84 
1884-85 
1885-86 


72 

63 
90 

57 
70 

39 
25 
61 
62 


W< 

1890-91 4 
1891-92 7 
1892-93 7 
1893-94 7 
1894-95 14 
1895-96 16 
1896-97 32 


jmen. 

1897-98 33 
1898-99 35 
1899-00 38 
1900-01 45 
1901-02 50 
1902-03 42 
1903-04 46 


1886-87 


69 


Total 


376 


1887-88 


77 






1888-89 


107 







Grand total, 8494. 



59 



Degrees Granted 



Year. 


LL.B. 


Year. 


LL.B 




Women 


. Total. 


1859 


8 


1892 


85 




3 


88 


i860 


24 


1893 


66 




2 


68 


1861 


20 


1894 


64 




3 


67 


1862 


36 


1895 


64 




8 


72 


1863 


25 


1896 


134 




6 


140 


1864 


21 


1897 


112 




9 


123 


1865 


5 


1898 


108 




9 


117 


1866 


12 


1899 


95 




10 


105 


1867 


4 


1900 


114 




7 


121 


1868 


11 


1901 


96 




7 


103 


1869 


10 


1902 


132 




11 


143 


1870 


11 


1903 


100 




12 


112 


1871 


8 













1872 


24 


Total 








2191 


1873 


27 












1874 


22 












187S 


40 






LL.M. 




1876 


33 




















1877 


57 


Year. 


Men. 


Women. 


Total. 


1878 


48 












1879 


39 


1893 




4 




4 


1880 


73 


1894 




6 




6 


1881 


37 


1895 




6 




6 


1882 


43 


1896 




8 


1 


9 


1883 


25 


1897 


. 


17 


2 


19 


1884 


15 


1898 




13 


3 


16 


1885 


26 


1899 




15 


4 


19 


1886 


25 


1900 




14 


3 


17 


1887 


27 


1 901 




14 


2 


16 


1888 


29 


1902 




5 




5 


1889 


36 


1903 




3 


3 


6 


1890 


54 













1891 


57 


Total 








123 



Grand total — 2314 

60 



A partial list of honors that have come to the 
graduates of the Law School. 

(Note. — The following list is by no means complete, but it is 
all that the records at present show. It will be regarded as 
a favor if any of the Alumni interested will make additions and 
corrections and send them to the Registrar of the school at 
Washington Square, N. Y. City.) 

Secretary of War. 

Elihu Root, LL.D., Class of '67. 

Justices of the New York Supreme Court. 

Willard Bartlett, '68. Ernest Hall, '67. 

David Levintrett, '72. Martin J. Keogh, '75. 

John Woodward, '81. James A. O'Gorman, '82. 
Edward E. McCall, '84. 

Vice Chancellor Court of Chancery, New Jersey. 

Eugene Stevenson, Class of 1870. 

Justices of City Court, New York City. 

Meyer S. Isaacs, '62. Ernest Hall, '67. 

Simeon B. Ehrlich, '78. 

Justices of District Courts, Civil and Criminal. 

James A. O'Gorman, '82. Benjamin Hoffman, '85. 

George F. Roesch, '96. Wauhope Lynn, '82. 

Charles E. Simms, '83. Henry J. Furlong, '95. 

Hermann Joseph, '78. E. Gaston Higginbotham, 93. 

Calvin D. Van Name, '77. Walter L. Durack, '85. 

Thomas F. Grady, '76. Joseph H. Steinert, '77. 
Thomas S. Henry, '68. 

61 



District Attorneys. 

Elihu Root, LL.D., '67, for So. Dist. of New York, 

United States. 

Asa Bird Gardiner, LL.D., '60, for New York County. 

George W. Davidson, '93, for Queens County. 

riayor of New York City. 

Smith Ely, Jr., Class of '62. 

Commissioners of Departments, New York City. 

Charles A. Knox, '72. David E. Austin, '77. 

Borough Presidents, New York City. 

Jacob A. Cantor, '75. J. Edward Swanstrom, '78. 

President of Board of Aldermen, New York City. 

Randolph Guggenheimer, Class of 1870. 

Representatives in Congress. 

J. A. Geissenheimer, '60. Edward Swan, '98. 

Senators of New York State. 

Charles P. McClelland, '82. Victor J. Dowling, '87. 
Eugene F. O'Connor, '82. Samuel S. Slater, '76. 
John H. Strahan, '67. Nathaniel A. Elsberg, '93. 



62 



FEB IS 1904 



